pdieten:AngryDragon: Stone Meadow: mcreadyblue: There will never be a means test for SS.

Never?

[szwordsmithdotcom.files.wordpress.com image 640x612]

But even if I am wrong, the solution to SS's woes is obvious: remove the caps and unearned income exclusion.

As long as the benefit continues to scale up, I have no problem removing the income cap. Unearned income is a different matter. If I save on top of what they take from me in SS, why should I be penalized because I was responsible with my money?

The problem is that over 30 years the money the government takes from me in SS could make for a fairly stable retirement. About $800K worth at historical returns. If I save outside of that, you're telling me that I just have to start giving up almost a million dollars because I was responsible?

How about no.

It's called income redistribution. Fairly standard feature of advanced economies. It's how we keep the poor from suffering.

I hate hitting Add Comment too early....

Your complaint reminds me of people who see that prisoners get free room and board and healthcare courtesy of the taxpayers and wonder why they should bother to stay out of jail when they could live for free. If you'd ever actually been to jail you'd know why.

Even if you're getting free money from the government from income redistribution, being poor sucks so hard that it's worth working harder to avoid it. So unless you want to start seeing "Lucky Ducky" comics, you might be better off appreciating the fact that you have enough income that you can have some of it redistributed away.

AngryDragon:The problem is that over 30 years the money the government takes from me in SS could make for a fairly stable retirement

That money you put into SS does not go back to you. It goes to current retirees first and if any is left over, it ends up being spent in the general fund. When it comes to your retirement, the money you get will be from current year tax revenue. Overall, this money is not really invested, but spent.

Don't be a drama llama, subby. How much money am I really going to need in retirement? I'll have all of my debt paid off, plus a STAR rebate on my property tax. $2000/mo from SS plus another $2000 from my 403b. Considering that's more money than I take home today and I'm doing just fine, I think I'll be able to get by when I have no mortgage payment.

Sergeant Grumbles:Millenials are screwed.Student loans and high housing prices are going to leave them paying off debt and renting for most of their prime earning years, unable to build any savings.

Define "Millennials".

Because I just graduated college and it's student loans yes, but housing prices no, since right when I buy a house is the same time when all the Baby Boomers die and drop millions of houses onto debt-saddled Millennials which sends the price screaming through the floor.

Now my cousins who are all about 10 years older than me, they're boned. They got hit with both and lost their shirts. But my cohort is going to be doing ok (not great, but ok), as long as they didn't do something stupid like take out $200K in student loans for an Art History degree (and if you honestly thought that was a good idea, you're an idiot).

Stone Meadow:AngryDragon: As long as the benefit continues to scale up, I have no problem removing the income cap. Unearned income is a different matter. If I save on top of what they take from me in SS, why should I be penalized because I was responsible with my money?

The problem is that over 30 years the money the government takes from me in SS could make for a fairly stable retirement. About $800K worth at historical returns. If I save outside of that, you're telling me that I just have to start giving up almost a million dollars because I was responsible?

How about no.

I take your point, but at the end of the day it's like complaining that unearned income is taxed at all. Nobody wants to means test SS. Nobody wants to pay into it. Everybody wants to collect 100% of their calculated entitlement. Those three goals are mutually incompatible in any kind of reasonable long run, so something is going to have to give. I think it will be on the taxation side, as poor voters outnumber wealthy ones, and will demand continued benefits.

And here in lies why my goal is to get completely around paying into social security by the time I am 40. 0

Mad Scientist:If you're relying on SS for your retirement, you're going to be a very poor moran.

nocturnal001:Most people seem to only rely on SS, 401k is gravy for a lot of them.

A little of A, a little of B. There are millions of seniors with nothing but SS income (and another million or so non-seniors with nothing but SSDI disability). It doesn't come recommended if you can avoid it. That said they aren't, 99% of the time, starving and homeless. They end up in crappy ultra-low-cost small towns (there are plenty of towns where such retirees are the typical resident), eating tuna sandwiches, watching Matlock, going to church, and waiting to die. It's amazing how little many grannies have to spend.

My retirement plan is foolproof. I'm one step ahead of this stupid recession by simply not having kids. I cannot overstate how rewarding this decision has been. I can do whatever the fark I want all the time; I still have plenty of friends and hobbies; I make double payments every month and will have my mortgage paid off by the time I'm 35; I will spend my children's college tuition on a Porsche.

meyerkev:Now my cousins who are all about 10 years older than me, they're boned.

Sounds genx and if they have done their homework correctly they should be fine. GenXers need to buy stocks as the boomers divest and then when the millenials finally get around to heavy investing in about 15-20 years, profit. I see another stock market surge like we had in the 80's sometime in the 2020-30's.

meyerkev:Because I just graduated college and it's student loans yes, but housing prices no, since right when I buy a house is the same time when all the Baby Boomers die and drop millions of houses onto debt-saddled Millennials which sends the price screaming through the floor.

I would like to think that will happen, but I have my doubts. I can see prices never decreasing appreciably, or whole neighborhoods bought up by investors/developers and turned into rentals.

Fish in a Barrel:Chagrin: E5bie: Great Janitor:Banks aren't great at investing, given that a CD is less than 3%. So you'll actually lose money compared to inflation. A 3% matching 401k still doesn't work due to inflation, which is why I've always turned down 401k options (also, if you need your money from a 401k before retirement you get hit with double taxes and double penalties).

If you put in 6%, and your employer puts in a match of 3%, then 9% is going into the 401K. That's a 50% boost.The returns would have to be pretty low for inflation to eat that up I think

But watch that 3% match get eaten by the 401K manager's fees (Fidelity takes 1%) and expense ratios on their funds (2%).

Seriously, the fees and default disbursement for my employer's 401K managed by Fidelity is that way.

Do you not get that the match is relative to your salary, not you contribution? If you invest 6% and your company match is 3%, then that's an instant 50% return. Even if your fees are 3%, you've still made well over 40% just by putting money into the 401(k). I happen to have a Fidelity 401(k). All of my fees are below 1%, and one is below 0.1%. Outside of the recession, my returns have been very positive.

NostroZ:Finally, your investments. Your family, make sure they are not dicks and will forget about you in your old age. If you know they will be dicks, connect them not throwing you in a dilapidated nursing home as a contingent in your will. As far as where to sock away your money, just make sure you're not paying high 4b1 fees or other 'management' fees above .5% on any fund. The rest, I'm sure other Farkers will help you with (diversification, local & foreign index funds, proper mix for your age, etc.)

Chagrin:But watch that 3% match get eaten by the 401K manager's fees (Fidelity takes 1%) and expense ratios on their funds (2%).

Seriously, the fees and default disbursement for my employer's 401K managed by Fidelity is that way.

AngryDragon:Yeah, there should be a law against fleecing 401(k)s with management fees. I'm lucky. The funds I hold have a total expense ratio of 0.08% and the brokerage is still making money.

1. 401k manager fee: The average is 0.78% (yes, that is too high in my opinion, but it's not 1%).2. 2% expense ratio is ridiculous. Choose better funds. I'm a big believer in Vanguard Indexes rather than hoping some fund manger his the jackpot and beats the market. 0.17% is the expense ratio of VFINX which my 401k offers.

So the fees are significantly less than what you're proposing IF you do it right. The average stock fund expense is 1.44% - highway robbery.

This is the conversation I want in on. There was a discussion similar to this a few months back that got me to look harder at my fund investments (Fidelity for sake of conversation). So I tried to find funds with low fees, but the only ones I could find (granted i have access to 500+ so hard to look at everyone of them) were index funds (i have a vangaurd index at something like .07-.08). All the other managed funds are around 0.7-0.85. Choose a few of those in different markets(large cap, discovery, low priced, real estate, utilities, yada-yada) and also had dividends that were reinvested( DRIPS?).

Don't you take into account the performance of the fund vs. fees? Example: index fund avg return is 8% with 0.08% fees vs. managed fung avg return of 15% with 1% fees. isn't the managed fund the better option?

Also, would like to hear what managed fund are out there for >0.15% fees

HeadLever:pdieten: being poor sucks so hard that it's worth working harder to avoid it

So long as we are very firm against those that work hard to pretend to be poor so they can cash in on the system. In this regard, we would be well served to keep these programs under close scrutiny.

This is true. However, enforcement mechanisms also cost money (the auditors don't work for free.) You would want to be sure that the enforcement doesn't end up costing more than it saves in prevented fraud.

pdieten:Even if you're getting free money from the government from income redistribution, being poor sucks so hard that it's worth working harder to avoid it.

The American worker has shown no problems working harder and being more productive. They're just seeing any fruits of their labor in terms of living wages since the American public laughably and gullibly bought into "trickle down" economics sold to them by Wall Street

hej:So for the financial rubes here, if dumping money into a 401k isn't good enough, what is?

It's not really that it's not good enough, rather that working for less than half of one's natural life and getting first world medical care in an environment when everyone is trying to do the same is going to require a savings rate that's well above what most people will tolerate.

mcreadyblue:Fish in a Barrel: Chagrin: E5bie: Great Janitor:Banks aren't great at investing, given that a CD is less than 3%. So you'll actually lose money compared to inflation. A 3% matching 401k still doesn't work due to inflation, which is why I've always turned down 401k options (also, if you need your money from a 401k before retirement you get hit with double taxes and double penalties).

If you put in 6%, and your employer puts in a match of 3%, then 9% is going into the 401K. That's a 50% boost.The returns would have to be pretty low for inflation to eat that up I think

But watch that 3% match get eaten by the 401K manager's fees (Fidelity takes 1%) and expense ratios on their funds (2%).

Seriously, the fees and default disbursement for my employer's 401K managed by Fidelity is that way.

Do you not get that the match is relative to your salary, not you contribution? If you invest 6% and your company match is 3%, then that's an instant 50% return. Even if your fees are 3%, you've still made well over 40% just by putting money into the 401(k). I happen to have a Fidelity 401(k). All of my fees are below 1%, and one is below 0.1%. Outside of the recession, my returns have been very positive.

Please post the funds with less than 0.1% fees.

Both Fidelity and Vanguard offer a flagship S&P 500 index fund with fees under .1% for the biggest holders (many 401(k) plans qualify for that fee structure) even if the account is under the normal minimum). If one works for the federal government, several of the TSP plans are in that neighborhood (it's the lowest cost plan I know of).

I'm self employed so no 401K for me, I have an IRA that I max every year, some jumbo CD's and saving accounts. I probably won't ever buy stocks(atm, but this could change in the next two years) and I have no plan on retiring other than what I'm about to describe.

I'm a real estate appraiser so I have a low stress job that I can do until the end of time that pays $4-500 an appraisal and I do between 15-20 appraisals a week with very very low over head ( which when I'm older I'll probably take the low stress route and do about 7 or so a week myself and my apprentices will do the rest and I'll just split the fee with them.

Most ppl who want to become an appraiser in the old days were men who after they retired from their jobs became one, so I'm about 30 years younger then all my peers.

I also am set to become the president of a large charitable foundation that will pay me an annual salary of $60,000 a year for one meeting a month. I may also inherit a few million from an uncle(he's not actually my uncle, he was married to my coont of an aunt and they've been divorced for several years but we are really close so it's not really an inheritance and more of a, you're responislbe type person please carry on my legacy type deal) of mine with no kids or wife and I'm an only child and the only one in the family. Both of my parents are dead so it's just the two of us.

Even if all that pans out, I'll still appraise houses and continue to make over six figures a year for the next 30-40 years since i'm only 34 right now, so with all that I'm hopefully set plus my wife is doing all that stuff everyone is talking about with her 401k IRA and employer matching.

But I have cousins who are brick layers and other lower skilled jobs that I really feel sorry for, their only hope is to retire with social security and to really work until they drop dead.

I need to have another kid so me and my wife won't be so lonely when we get older.

I'm not saying my way is any better than anyone else and I know I can do much better and plan to in the next two years (hopefully with stock purchases and stuff I don't really know anything about), but I don't feel as worried as some people should because even if nothing I've been told pans out, I'll still be a real estate appraiser and can do that well into my 80's like an old teacher of mine has done just not as often or work as hard as I do now.

I'm very blessed for a guy with a liberal arts degree from North Eastern Oklahoma A & M. Go Golden Norsemen!

Hyjamon:NostroZ: Finally, your investments. Your family, make sure they are not dicks and will forget about you in your old age. If you know they will be dicks, connect them not throwing you in a dilapidated nursing home as a contingent in your will. As far as where to sock away your money, just make sure you're not paying high 4b1 fees or other 'management' fees above .5% on any fund. The rest, I'm sure other Farkers will help you with (diversification, local & foreign index funds, proper mix for your age, etc.)

Chagrin: But watch that 3% match get eaten by the 401K manager's fees (Fidelity takes 1%) and expense ratios on their funds (2%).

Seriously, the fees and default disbursement for my employer's 401K managed by Fidelity is that way.

AngryDragon: Yeah, there should be a law against fleecing 401(k)s with management fees. I'm lucky. The funds I hold have a total expense ratio of 0.08% and the brokerage is still making money.

Rapmaster2000: That depends on two things.

1. 401k manager fee: The average is 0.78% (yes, that is too high in my opinion, but it's not 1%).2. 2% expense ratio is ridiculous. Choose better funds. I'm a big believer in Vanguard Indexes rather than hoping some fund manger his the jackpot and beats the market. 0.17% is the expense ratio of VFINX which my 401k offers.

So the fees are significantly less than what you're proposing IF you do it right. The average stock fund expense is 1.44% - highway robbery.

This is the conversation I want in on. There was a discussion similar to this a few months back that got me to look harder at my fund investments (Fidelity for sake of conversation). So I tried to find funds with low fees, but the only ones I could find (granted i have access to 500+ so hard to look at everyone of them) were index funds (i have a vangaurd index at something like .07-.08). All the other managed funds are around 0.7-0.85. Choose a few of those in different markets(large cap, discovery, low priced, real estate, utilities, yad ...

I don't believe there's ever been a study that found a long term difference (aside from higher costs) in the performance of active vs passive funds. The dirty secret of fund management is that nearly everyone closet indexes (meaning they decide to hold say GE within 1% of the S&P 500) because if one doesn't they're exceedingly likely to get fired rather quickly when they have even a modest performance differential.

Hyjamon:This is the conversation I want in on. There was a discussion similar to this a few months back that got me to look harder at my fund investments (Fidelity for sake of conversation). So I tried to find funds with low fees, but the only ones I could find (granted i have access to 500+ so hard to look at everyone of them) were index funds (i have a vangaurd index at something like .07-.08). All the other managed funds are around 0.7-0.85. Choose a few of those in different markets(large cap, discovery, low priced, real estate, utilities, yada-yada) and also had dividends that were reinvested( DRIPS?).

Don't you take into account the performance of the fund vs. fees? Example: index fund avg return is 8% with 0.08% fees vs. managed fung avg return of 15% with 1% fees. isn't the managed fund the better option?

"Past performance does not guarantee future results"

In theory over the long term nobody can outguess the market, so performance of all funds will revert to the mean, which is the index.

In practice some fund managers are very good at their jobs and earn their fees.

InmanRoshi:since the American public laughably and gullibly bought into "trickle down" economics sold to them by Wall Street

Trickle down is not the only thing that is holding us back. It is also the free trade aspect of the new global economy. In general terms, you are not going to be able to compete with China or India when your labor cost is 5 times as much. That puts tremendous pressure on wages and it will continue until these countries can catch up.

Own index funds - make sure no load and less than 0.2% expense ratio. Cover the risk by investing in small, large, international etc index funds. Every six months, rebalance them. They will outperform inflation and over time will outperform any other investment.

InmanRoshi:pdieten: Even if you're getting free money from the government from income redistribution, being poor sucks so hard that it's worth working harder to avoid it.

The American worker has shown no problems working harder and being more productive. They're just seeing any fruits of their labor in terms of living wages since the American public laughably and gullibly bought into "trickle down" economics sold to them by Wall Street

[encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com image 457x202].

Starting in the 1930s the American labor market was heavily regulated, and until the late 1960s it had no practical overseas competition.

Middle class strength of the mid 20th century was an accident of economic history. We will return to the world's historical mean: a few elites, a small-to-moderately sized professional class, and everyone else will be scraping by on leftovers.

If you've got the $10k minimum, Vanguard Admirals like VTSAX or VFIAX.

If you're willing to consider ETFs instead of traditional funds, there are several commission-free ETFs under 0.1% (although there's a bit of uncertain cost in the bid-ask spread for ETFs... negligible for heavily-traded ETFs). TD Ameritrade has VTI (total stock) and IVV (S&P 500) for .05%/.07% respectively with no commission. Or, if you open a Schwab account, their in-house ETFs like SCHB/SCHX for 0.4%.

Great Janitor:A 3% matching 401k still doesn't work due to inflation, which is why I've always turned down 401k options (also, if you need your money from a 401k before retirement you get hit with double taxes and double penalties).

Jesus Christ. Someone's giving you really bad investment advice.

If you need money from your 401k, you can actually do a loan instead of a withdrawal for up to $50K or 50% of your 401k total, whichever's lower, and it gets repaid through your paycheck deduction. No penalty, but some double taxes (some say for the interest portion only, not the principal portion).

pdieten:Your complaint reminds me of people who see that prisoners get free room and board and healthcare courtesy of the taxpayers and wonder why they should bother to stay out of jail when they could live for free. If you'd ever actually been to jail you'd know why.

Even if you're getting free money from the government from income redistribution, being poor sucks so hard that it's worth working harder to avoid it. So unless you want to start seeing "Lucky Ducky" comics, you might be better off appreciating the fact that you have enough income that you can have some of it redistributed away.

Uh...no.

My complaint is that I earned that money, through my work, for decades. Long hours, missed weekends and vacations, sometimes multiple jobs, saving every penny busting my ass to make sure I wouldn't end up in the worst-case retirement scenario. Being poor does suck hard, I've been there. Now after working for 30 years someone is going to come along and say "you have enough, someone else needs it, sorry". I'm not some 1%er. I'm just a guy being responsible for myself. I have two words for anyone believing that what I sweated for is fair game for "redistribution"...

No, fark you. If you don't want to participate in society then go live in Somalia or something. This bullshiat where people like you pretend that the job you're able to go to and are healthy enough to work at just fell out of your own ass one day is completely retarded.

Your job, your health, your education, everything right down to the fact that you're able to go get a drink when you need it without having to worry it will leave you dying of the runs over the course of the next week comes down to the fact that you are participating in a society. If you're going to accept those benefits then you should accept some of the costs as well.

If you think you can go kill your own food with your bootstraps and catch rainwater in the boots, go farking do it and quit your goddamn whining.

pdieten:Starting in the 1930s the American labor market was heavily regulated, and until the late 1960s it had no practical overseas competition.

Middle class strength of the mid 20th century was an accident of economic history. We will return to the world's historical mean: a few elites, a small-to-moderately sized professional class, and everyone else will be scraping by on leftovers.

Which basically proves that the American Dream really amounts to nothing more than magical Unicorn Farts. No matter how "hard" you work, the ownership class will dispose of you as soon as it's marginally cost effective to do so. Eventually the workers won't have enough wages to create demand to feed the system. The big industry fish will start eating up all the smaller fish through mergers and acquisitions to try to grab up as much share as they can of an ever decreasing market. Capitalsim won't be able to be supported by it's own weight (It wouldn't have been able to support it's own weight in 2008 if the Fed and Taxpayers hadn't bailed it out to keep the entire house of cards from falling).

But by all means, let's put all our chips on that roulette wheel table.

AngryDragon:pdieten: Your complaint reminds me of people who see that prisoners get free room and board and healthcare courtesy of the taxpayers and wonder why they should bother to stay out of jail when they could live for free. If you'd ever actually been to jail you'd know why.

Even if you're getting free money from the government from income redistribution, being poor sucks so hard that it's worth working harder to avoid it. So unless you want to start seeing "Lucky Ducky" comics, you might be better off appreciating the fact that you have enough income that you can have some of it redistributed away.

Uh...no.

My complaint is that I earned that money, through my work, for decades. Long hours, missed weekends and vacations, sometimes multiple jobs, saving every penny busting my ass to make sure I wouldn't end up in the worst-case retirement scenario. Being poor does suck hard, I've been there. Now after working for 30 years someone is going to come along and say "you have enough, someone else needs it, sorry". I'm not some 1%er. I'm just a guy being responsible for myself. I have two words for anyone believing that what I sweated for is fair game for "redistribution"...

FARK YOU.

I hate to break it to you, but the 1% feel exactly like this too. Seriously, it's precisely the same mindset.

Everyone thinks they work hard for their money. Most people think they don't have enough. You're going to pay the tax rate that the law says is correct for your income level. The tax tables are just numbers and they don't care that much about how you earned the money. It's all about the dollar amount.

AngryDragon:My complaint is that I earned that money, through my work, for decades. Long hours, missed weekends and vacations, sometimes multiple jobs, saving every penny busting my ass to make sure I wouldn't end up in the worst-case retirement scenario. Being poor does suck hard, I've been there. Now after working for 30 years someone is going to come along and say "you have enough, someone else needs it, sorry". I'm not some 1%er. I'm just a guy being responsible for myself. I have two words for anyone believing that what I sweated for is fair game for "redistribution"...

FARK YOU.

AngryDragon:My complaint is that I earned that money, through my work, for decades. Long hours, missed weekends and vacations, sometimes multiple jobs, saving every penny busting my ass to make sure I wouldn't end up in the worst-case retirement scenario. Being poor does suck hard, I've been there. Now after working for 30 years someone is going to come along and say "you have enough, someone else needs it, sorry". I'm not some 1%er. I'm just a guy being responsible for myself. I have two words for anyone believing that what I sweated for is fair game for "redistribution"...

FARK YOU.

I love it when someone thinks they're a special little snowflake because they got up and went to work in the morning like everyone else. Newsflash: You're going to take out much more from Medicare and SSN than you ever put into it. Mostly due to advancements in lifespan and medicine, for which you can thank publicly funded research institutions and education.

Hyjamon:Don't you take into account the performance of the fund vs. fees? Example: index fund avg return is 8% with 0.08% fees vs. managed fung avg return of 15% with 1% fees. isn't the managed fund the better option?

The problem with this is, the market average beats managed funds over the long-term. That is even before you subtract fees. Some people made out like bandits on Magellan in the 80s and that really set the stage for thinking that market beating results were repeatable. Unfortunately (for investors, but fortunately for fund managers), this is not the case. You're much better off in the indexed average.

Slow and low. Don't try to beat the market, just try to match it. I have a little fun in my IRA with individual stocks, but I don't expect to beat the market. If anything, I keep an eye on not losing to it.

No, fark you. If you don't want to participate in society then go live in Somalia or something. This bullshiat where people like you pretend that the job you're able to go to and are healthy enough to work at just fell out of your own ass one day is completely retarded.

Your job, your health, your education, everything right down to the fact that you're able to go get a drink when you need it without having to worry it will leave you dying of the runs over the course of the next week comes down to the fact that you are participating in a society. If you're going to accept those benefits then you should accept some of the costs as well.

If you think you can go kill your own food with your bootstraps and catch rainwater in the boots, go farking do it and quit your goddamn whining.

I pay my taxes. Happily. I have no kids in school, yet I pay property taxes without complaining. Federal taxes, state taxes , local taxes, sales taxes, capital gains taxes, use taxes, medicare taxes. I have no problem paying any of those and "participating in society". When it comes to retirement? Hands off. I have already contributed, probably more than my share. Anyone who wants to take my retirement can EABOD.

InmanRoshi:pdieten: Starting in the 1930s the American labor market was heavily regulated, and until the late 1960s it had no practical overseas competition.

Middle class strength of the mid 20th century was an accident of economic history. We will return to the world's historical mean: a few elites, a small-to-moderately sized professional class, and everyone else will be scraping by on leftovers.

Which basically proves that the American Dream really amounts to nothing more than magical Unicorn Farts. No matter how "hard" you work, the ownership class will dispose of you as soon as it's marginally cost effective to do so. Eventually the workers won't have enough wages to create demand to feed the system. The big industry fish will start eating up all the smaller fish through mergers and acquisitions to try to grab up as much share as they can of an ever decreasing market. Capitalsim won't be able to be supported by it's own weight (It wouldn't have been able to support it's own weight in 2008 if the Fed and Taxpayers hadn't bailed it out to keep the entire house of cards from falling).

But by all means, let's put all our chips on that roulette wheel table.

The American Dream isn't just unicorn farts. But most people aren't going to reach their dreams. If you start with parents who care about you, a decent public school, a lot of internal drive, the ability to impress people who can pull you up, and a bit (well, actually a lot) of luck, you still have a pretty good chance.

But the days of having a job pulling levers in a factory and also being able to raise a family in a nice house and take vacations every year? That's gone forever. Trouble is we have a god awful lot of people in this country who aren't (or don't want to be) any good at anything except pulling levers.

Chagrin:E5bie: Great Janitor:Banks aren't great at investing, given that a CD is less than 3%. So you'll actually lose money compared to inflation. A 3% matching 401k still doesn't work due to inflation, which is why I've always turned down 401k options (also, if you need your money from a 401k before retirement you get hit with double taxes and double penalties).

If you put in 6%, and your employer puts in a match of 3%, then 9% is going into the 401K. That's a 50% boost.The returns would have to be pretty low for inflation to eat that up I think

But watch that 3% match get eaten by the 401K manager's fees (Fidelity takes 1%) and expense ratios on their funds (2%).

Seriously, the fees and default disbursement for my employer's 401K managed by Fidelity is that way.

It was at precisely this moment that I finally understood how completely incompetent the American people are at the concept of "percentage".

You make $50,000 (round number for convenience). You put in 6% and your company matches 3%. You say "But watch that 3% match get eaten by the 401K manager's fees (Fidelity takes 1%) and expense ratios on their funds (2%)." but those fees are not charged as a percent of your income, they're a percent of your account. So you contribute $3,000, your company tosses in $1,500 and your 401k balance is $4,500. Now Fidelity takes 1% and the fund takes 2% of that, for a total of $135. Grand total is $4,365 on your investment of $3,000.

If you need me to walk through that more slowly, I'm available for tutoring lessons.